hmmm, an interesting idea. it sure would save a lot of headaches... but i can see it creating some new ones as well! personally, i am not planning on getting married again (twice is enough) however, i do not want to spend the rest of my life alone... that means life partnership. having "marriage benefits" without marriage itself would be nice!
I'd just like to see the whole marriage and other social contracts get separated. Then we can deal with the social stuff from a practical standpoint, rather than a religious or biases position. We won't have to fight so hard just to make people see that the other things, like child custody and property, aren't about the religion, but are about people sharing stuff and being civilized.
I agree, but right now, as has been for a long time, legalities and finances are too tied up in legal matrimony. Obviously, it was well-suited to earlier times under different social conditions but many things have changed; women are no longer *property.* Some of the laws were in attempt to protect the economically dependent, of course. Yet, religion is going to continue to be a bone of contention because it's tied up in values, and where children are concerned, those 'biases' will always come into play. It is too bad that many people cannot see beyond their own biases and view clearly the possibility that behavior itself is the measure, regardless of the religion involved.
It is rather revolutionary to think of marriage as not being a social contract, but currently there are too many ingrained aspects of it to try to weed out in only one two generations. It's probably going to take awhile...
Cool! It's actually quite a brilliant take on the situation. And unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, I think. It just becomes too hard to figure out who gets the kids and who gets healthcare, as the author points out.
Harder, perhaps, but definitely more realistic. Marriage certainly does not mean the same thing to everyone. Heck, some do it just to become legal residents of the US. Conversely, not every close couple chooses to wed. Anna remains the most important person in my life whether or not we have some official paper declaring such.
I think it would be a great idea to have the gov't step aside from the business of legitimizing relationships. If Anna and I think and declare we are a partnership, that should be enough for others to respect our choice. Besides my bond with Anna doesn't hurt anyone else...why should the gov't, my boss, or my neighbor care one way or the other?? It's a private choice.
A couple endruns around the supposed hardships speculated about in the article... *Universal health care anyone? *How about giving employees benefit 'points' which they can 'spend' however they wish. For example, lets say my primary and secondary both need health insurance...maybe I can give my secondary health care coverage also, instead of taking that two-week vacation or accepting the yearly 1% pay raise. Ooooh, choices!
oh, crap. I'm on a roll but its waaaay to late. ok. stop typing. now. really i mean it...
Universal Health Care, yes! Cafe Benefits plans, yes!
I totally agree with you. The situation as it exists is not fair. It's just gonna be a hard sell with those in power if it makes it more difficult to figure things out, rather than easier. I certainly hope that it happens. I just don't see it likely to be happening SOON.
Given the current hysteria about the "gay marriage" talk in DC, that is obviously going to be an issue soon. And I think that given how broken our health care system is in this country on top of that is going to drive some changes more quickly than you might think. The important thing will be for the people to shout loud enough to make those positive changes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 06:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-05 02:12 pm (UTC)It is rather revolutionary to think of marriage as not being a social contract, but currently there are too many ingrained aspects of it to try to weed out in only one two generations. It's probably going to take awhile...
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 08:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 12:08 am (UTC)I think it would be a great idea to have the gov't step aside from the business of legitimizing relationships. If Anna and I think and declare we are a partnership, that should be enough for others to respect our choice. Besides my bond with Anna doesn't hurt anyone else...why should the gov't, my boss, or my neighbor care one way or the other?? It's a private choice.
A couple endruns around the supposed hardships speculated about in the article...
*Universal health care anyone?
*How about giving employees benefit 'points' which they can 'spend' however they wish. For example, lets say my primary and secondary both need health insurance...maybe I can give my secondary health care coverage also, instead of taking that two-week vacation or accepting the yearly 1% pay raise. Ooooh, choices!
oh, crap. I'm on a roll but its waaaay to late. ok. stop typing. now. really i mean it...
no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 08:22 am (UTC)I totally agree with you. The situation as it exists is not fair. It's just gonna be a hard sell with those in power if it makes it more difficult to figure things out, rather than easier. I certainly hope that it happens. I just don't see it likely to be happening SOON.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 10:07 am (UTC)